Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Prize Program Releases Workshop Report

Posted by michael on from the friendly-competition dept.

colonist writes "NASA's prize competitions program, Centennial Challenges, held its first workshop June 15-16, 2004 to brainstorm ideas, define rules and set prize amounts. The post-workshop report (PDF) is available. New ideas for challenges should be sent to <ccideas@hq.nasa.gov>. The Centennial Challenges program is supported by the X Prize Foundation, the Aldridge Commission and some members of Congress, but not all."

34 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Nasa is taking this seriously by The0retical · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am very happy to see that NASA is taking the next generation of spacecraft very seriously. It is rather sad that it took two accidents to see that they really did need a new space craft.

    Hopefully it will get into space sooner and revive public interest in the space program though, since the private sector is very influential in pushing technology forward.

    1. Re:Nasa is taking this seriously by StarWynd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is rather sad that it took two accidents to see that they really did need a new space craft.

      It didn't take the accidents for NASA to see that they needed new spacecraft. Many at NASA knew long ago that new spacecraft were needed. Some argued for new spacecraft, but they were opposed by those who said 1.) it'd cost too much and 2.) that since the old fleet was still functioning well, they could still be flown even though the age of the craft was past what they were originally designed. Many people thought new spacecraft were needed, but some thought it wasn't practical at the time especially since there had been very few major catastrophies.

      My point is that many at NASA understood that new spacecraft were needed. The accidents didn't make them realize this. What the accidents did was take away the argument that the old equipment could still work well despite being older than what the original design specifications stated.

    2. Re:Nasa is taking this seriously by cmowire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Furthermore, they either needed a vehicle with *all* of the capabilities of the shuttle to fulfill all of the future missions planned (mainly the massive assembly of the ISS) or they needed to keep the shuttle going at the same time as it's replacement until all of the missions had been completed. And they didn't have the money for two different spacecraft being operated at the same time.

      I think the real problem is they simply don't *know* what the lifetime of a shuttle is. They were designed for 100 or so uses, but with a launch every week or two. And none of the real problems with the shuttle are actually things failing because of age, it's either disaster creeping up on them or a continuing increase in maintenence costs.

      --
      Gentoo Sucks
    3. Re:Nasa is taking this seriously by StarWynd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And none of the real problems with the shuttle are actually things failing because of age, it's either disaster creeping up on them or a continuing increase in maintenence costs.

      Increase in maintenance costs is precisely because of age. As things get older, unexpected problems have a greater probability of showing up.

      I agree that the shuttle disasters were not because of wear and tear on the vehicle. But, no matter the source of the disaster, it vastly weakened the argument that the shuttle was still safe.

  2. Submits plans for Death Star... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...awaits first prize.

    1. Re:Submits plans for Death Star... by Rei · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think they'll probably strike the plans down for the silly idea of putting a thermal exhaust port from the main reactor without a suitable blast-resistant one-way value.

      But, it you want to make a death star, I have some advice for you...

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
  3. Oh, I know something! by toetagger1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not do something useful? Let's make a challange to transport humans to Mars by 2030, wouldn't that be fun? - George W. Bush

    --
    who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
    1. Re:Oh, I know something! by Commander+Trollco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know you're trolling, but maybe some more manned exploration would be worthwhile. Just think, we could send people to orbit Titan and look for signs of life. It is around the triple point of Methane much as we are around the triple point of water, CH4 could be the central to Titanian biology. Just don't try to land on Europa...

      --
      http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
    2. Re:Oh, I know something! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's make a challange to transport humans to Mars by 2030, wouldn't that be fun?

      It would be a complete gas! That is, as long as we use Nuclear Rockets. I *don't* want to have the travelers sitting around for a year and a half while they wait to get to their destination. A NERVA rocket (1960's tech!) could get the astronauts there faster and cheaper. If properly developed, it could even make Mars trips practical.

      Personally, I'm thinking that NASA needs to be financially broken down by:

      - Science (Deep Space Probes, etc.)
      - Engineering (New *cough* propulsion methods)
      - Vehicles and Launch Support

      Congress would fund each of these individually, according to their needs. This way the long term projects (Remote Terrestrial Observation, or exploring Europa) would not be confused with shorter term projects (vehicle design) and Congress won't can the projects because "they're taking too much time and money".

      In addition, Congress can then see a very real return on the money they spend. Invest in a new engine, see the results in 2-3 years. Invest in a vehicle (must be based on existing components put out by the engineering department) and see the results in 2-3 years. Invest in a science probe and see the results 10 years later (as the plan calls for).

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    3. Re:Oh, I know something! by CommieLib · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm totally onboard for NERVA, but keep in mind that NERVA wasn't done, per se, when the program folded. There were some significant problems relating to hydrogen eroding the graphite engine cores that still remained to be solved.

      I think what would be great would be a (relatively) protest-proof method of transporting nuclear materials into space. There are always going to be leftists who oppose it on religious grounds, but if we can satisfy the reasonable people with objections, then the road to space will stretch out in front of us.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    4. Re:Oh, I know something! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm totally onboard for NERVA, but keep in mind that NERVA wasn't done, per se, when the program folded. There were some significant problems relating to hydrogen eroding the graphite engine cores that still remained to be solved.

      No argument here, but the project did produce real technology that works today. The graphite problem was not a show-stopper, and the Phoebes engine DID burn at maximum power for 10 minutes. That alone is sufficient power to send a rocket on a Mars bound trajectory. (Especially if multiple engines are used.) Not to mention that 40 years of material sciences should help cure that specific problem.

      We *could* just wait around for Gas Core engines to reach maturity, but then we might be waiting a few decades. It's much better to use today's tech now, and let the knowledge gained through that use trickle into creating next-gen engines faster.

      Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to fund a prototype of Zubrin's Nuclear Salt Water Rocket. 7,000-10,000 sec ISP! We'd be cruising the solar system like it was our back yard!

      I think what would be great would be a (relatively) protest-proof method of transporting nuclear materials into space. There are always going to be leftists who oppose it on religious grounds, but if we can satisfy the reasonable people with objections, then the road to space will stretch out in front of us.

      Interestingly enough, opposition to nuclear tech is waning. A recent study by Bisconti Research for the Nuclear Energy Institute found that 64% of respondents are in favor of nuclear power. That's a huge jump from 49% back in 1983. I think it's because a new generation has grown up without the fear of the Cold War, and the old timers are starting to forget what that was like. Without the fear of nuclear weapons, they have far fewer qualms about nuclear tech.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    5. Re:Oh, I know something! by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      NERVA is a great concept, and they did manage to largely get around the vibration problems in the core that were ejecting fuel. However, they never did fix the corrosion problem, and I'm not so sure modern materials techs can.

      Nonetheless, for interplanetary-space use, is erosion of radioactive core materials really that serious of a problem? I doubt any of the ejected mass would ever come anywhere close to intersecting earth, and would probably end up escaping the solar system or intersecting the sun. The big risk, it seems, would be from cracking and core disassembly, which are mostly vibration issues, but if present could pose significant safety issues to the ship.

      I love Zubrin's salt water rocket, though. A very clever concept for interplanetary-space use that might prove a whole lot easier. I mean, heck - you've got your moderator and fuel conveniently mixed together, and neither of them are going to erode unpredictably or crack! :) The worst you can do is damage your combustion chamber and nozzle.

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
  4. Possibly misleading summary by nebaz · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the summary

    The Centennial Challenges program is supported by the X Prize Foundation, the Aldridge Commission and some members of Congress, but not all.

    And when the "not all" link is clicked on, here is one blurb

    However, in a June 17 letter to NASA, Reps. James Walsh (R-NY) and Alan Mollohan (D-WV), the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the House Appropriations Committee subcommittee that oversees NASA, denied that request as well as another request to move $24.2 million from two space science missions. It doesn't appear that the two Congressmen have anything against the Centennial Challenges program itself; instead, they are concerned NASA is moving too far ahead on the overall exploration program without Congressional approval.

    This does not say that these Congressman are against the idea, it's possible that they just think NASA is jumping the gun.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  5. Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? by vuvewux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The question is, are prizes of 10 to 30 million USD enough for corporations to spend that much or more developing space tech? Would it be cheaper than NASA developing the same things in-house? Or would the prize money be better spent on NASA projects? I'd rather my tax dollars not go for just corporate handouts.

    --

    Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
    1. Re:Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? by lockefire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The money wouldn't be better spent on NASA projects as it costs a lot more to do it NASA's way than a private company can do it for. The money might provide a sort of competitve spirit so that people have a goal. It seems that competiton is as important as money to some people.

    2. Re:Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember these are prizes, meaning a contest of many parallel efforts which if NASA attempted would surely exceed budgets. It's like paying for a product, not the r&d of all efforts - which is what nasa has essentially been doing (10-30 mill "in house" wouldn't buy very much). No matter how you look at considering all facts, 10-30 mil isn't shit when considering the product produced. Especially when you consider NASA products normally cost amounts that begin with "B". C'mon - just think about the X-prize; 10 million for a reusable spacecraft? How much do you think Nasa would spend on the same endeaver. I would guess SEVERAL *B*illion.

      --
      ymmv
    3. Re:Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      30+ million from a reusable *3 person very-suborbital* craft. X-prize contender craft are only useful for joy rides and for getting to places fast via a suborbital trajectory (I'm not sure how far they could make it on a craft like Rutan's... I'd have to simulate it first).

      --
      Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
    4. Re:Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? by cmowire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the whole point is that these aren't even enough for big corporations.

      The whole point of such prizes is to get college teams, small startups, and millionare h4x04z like John Carmack to work on them. Because they'll probably be questioning assumptions the whole way.

      It's also a cost-multiplier effect. For every dollar spent by NASA, severl more dollars will be spent by financial backers, losing teams, etc.

      And the big thing is, for normal projects, to get it going, you just need to be good at powerpoint. For this one, no success = no money. So it really prevents folks from blowing money because they've got it. Or assuring NASA that the breakthrough technology that's needed to make the design work will be ready shortly (a la the X-33's lumpy composite fuel tanks that didn't actually work)

      --
      Gentoo Sucks
    5. Re:Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $30 million would probably not even pay for the studies necessary to decide which project should get funding in NASA-land. If they get any results at all from such a tiny amount of money, it's a real bargain compared to doing it in-house.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    6. Re:Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? by cmowire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      SpaceShipOne isn't very useful for going anywhere, without major mods.

      Which is OK. SpaceShipOne and the X-prize was mostly there to show that it was possible, not necessarily to actually build the production vehicle.

      After SpaceShipOne flies some number of missions, they will probably have a pretty good idea for what the cost of a production space vehicle, operated like an airplane, would cost, so that folks can write up believable business plans to attract investors and not come off looking like pie-in-the-sky whackos.

      --
      Gentoo Sucks
    7. Re:Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My guess is that Rutan's going to have to prove an orbital flyer before they actually take him seriously. Opponents will simply point out that the stresses and heat problems go up exponentially with speed. Since speed is what you need to achieve orbit (much more important than altitude), he'll have a hard time convincing the opponents.

      What SpaceShipOne did do is prove that space travel is open to development by small companies. Once he claims the X-Prize, Rutan should have no trouble in finding investors for an orbital space-plane.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    8. Re:Corporate handouts, or a good tactic? by gregorsamsa11 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think they should impose some spending caps (or other analogous restrictions) on prize candidates. That way, efficiency would be a prime concern.

  6. The best thing about the prize system by vuvewux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is that if a project horribly fails it, NASA doesn't have to pay! No risk!

    --

    Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
  7. Centennial of what? by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anyway as a challenge I am prepared to spare the life of anyone who can build and deploy for me a secret orbiting battle station to further my ambition of global domination.

    PS If it has Battlestar Galactica style fighter launch bays I might throw in an iPod

    PPS The laser cannons have to make really cool sounds when they fire or you die with the rest

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  8. oh you want challenges? by aqui10 · · Score: 2, Funny

    New ideas for challenges should be sent to <ccideas@hq.nasa.gov>.
    Challenges ? Buddy here's one for you, post your mail id at Slashdot and not get spammed ! Beat that and you get the prize!

  9. Mother of all prizes by raider_red · · Score: 2, Funny

    How about if we just throw down the gauntlet. We'll give a large cash prize to anyone who can develop an interstellar drive and can demonstrate a working prototype. Extra money if they can make it FTL.

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
  10. The best idea so far... by cmowire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Beat NASA to the Moon. As a "Friendly" competition, the goal would be to beam back pictures of a NASA lunar probe as it lands.

    They've got some good stuff there. A lot of "solve problems that have dogged NASA for a while" sort of things -- lightweight radiation shielding, tanks that can be used for long-term storage in space without the contents boiling off, stuff like that. There's a few big X-prize-ish challenges, like an orbital x-prize mission, a better sub-orbital mission, etc.

    And there's even some talk about some projects oriented at the hobyist or student, most specifically a space suit glove. They were seriosuly considering either lending out vacum chambers or providing the plans so that you could build one for around $300. Which I thought was especially good.

    --
    Gentoo Sucks
  11. Centennial Challenge and X-Prize by Kris+Magnusson · · Score: 2, Informative

    The X-Prize is obviously the model for the Centennial Challenge--in fact an X-Prize administrator participated in the Challenge. Clearly the X-Prize was the right idea at the right time. If NASA and Congress actually follow through, we might see some useful things come out of this.

    Personally, I liked the idea of a reusable first and second stage heavy-lift vehicle. I always wondered why they couldn't be reusable.

    ....... kris

    --
    "I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
  12. More contractor patty-cake mastrubation by demo9orgon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    NASA loves wheels.
    They love to re-invent them.

    Why don't they just use a retro-fitted nuclear submarine?

    Oh yes, I went there.(stewie-ism)

    Remove the electric motors, repurpose the ballast as sheilding or water/env resources. and start training some divers to do EVA in NASA "stay-puff" suits.

    Put a sturdy self-contained, time-tested vehicle for transporting humans in an imicial environment into orbit. Compared to 3900 atmospheres, space is a cakewalk (with a cute caller who doesn't mind tounge-kissing you and cupping your ass too when she hands you the prize).

    Railgun that bastard into orbit without any squishy humans in it, or ask/pay Burt Rutan to make a really-fricken huge composite slingshot--just get it up there.

    Then send the crew up later.

    Retrofit the damn thing with some easily replaced external chemical/ion thrusters and fuel it up and go. Shouldn't take much reprogramming to interface to the thrusters with the existing computer control systems.

    Once it's powered up, everything is there. What the hell is so hard about that?
    Someone should make a damn movie about it. Knowing the guys that work on Anime, they already have and I'm just too poor to bother looking.

    There NASA. Simple enough? And free. Hell, let's GPL that puppy someone.

    --
    Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
    1. Re:More contractor patty-cake mastrubation by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Didn't we have this talk over on NuclearSpace.com? I think we were discussing a Sea Wolf class shell.

      Honestly, there's nothing all that hard about getting a big space craft up there. There's just the problem of convincing someone to do it. The US Government hasn't wanted big launches (think hundreds to thousands of metric tones) since the Apollo missions, and even went as far as to dismantle the Saturn V program. The Sea Dragon program showed that it could build a Sea Wold-like shell as a super cheap rocket, but no one was willing to exchange massive payload for the cost reductions. Thus the Sea Dragon didn't get the time of day.

      And now Energia is sitting on a factory that could start producing the Energia Vulcan for the small cost of an 11 million dollar renovation, but the US wouldn't possibly even think of paying the Russians for a final anything. The Proton rocket only launches because Lockheed Martin (IIRC) bought it out.

      Let's talk about this topic again when someone with money is serious about putting real tonnage into orbit.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  13. One billion quatloos by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Funny

    To the first to deliver an Infinite Improbability Drive.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:One billion quatloos by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Funny

      To the first to deliver an Infinite Improbability Drive.

      Could someone calculate the improbability factor of someone making a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference on Slashdot? What's that? It has a very low improbability? Well then, I'm just going to hop on the Heart of Gold and turn on the improbability drive. Then I'd NEVER have to hear ANOTHER LAME REFERENCE to H2G2 AGAIN.

      Wait a minute...

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  14. Re:Some of the ideas ... by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm gonna guess that it means building an RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator) using 1/4 the plutonium used in current designs.

    --

    ---
    Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
    (I read with sigs off.)
  15. Another desperate bid from NASA bureaucrats by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NASA continues to search desperately for ways to divert attention from their core failure areas. (No new launchers in 30 years, a space station with no mission, and space shuttles that blow up.) Congress needs to pull the plug on all NASA activities not directly related to putting stuff in space. General R&D funding should be done through the NSF and NIST, which have the charter to do that. NASA does not, and it's not very good at it. NASA is really good at taking credit and putting big color pictures of irrelevant stuff in their PR materials. But as a scientific R&D operation, they're a flop.